{"id":92,"date":"2025-05-13T14:27:20","date_gmt":"2025-05-13T14:27:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/healthtapestry.com\/?p=92"},"modified":"2025-05-13T14:27:21","modified_gmt":"2025-05-13T14:27:21","slug":"making-sense-of-the-implementation-of-health-tapestry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/healthtapestry.ca\/index.php\/2025\/05\/13\/making-sense-of-the-implementation-of-health-tapestry\/","title":{"rendered":"Making Sense of the Implementation of Health TAPESTRY"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Why did we do the study?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The implementation of Health TAPESTRY in six communities across the province involved a nine-partner community-academic partnership (CAP): one academic partner, two non-profit organizations, and six primary care practices. There are many barriers, facilitators, and considerations that occur when forming and engaging in this kind of partnership, many of which are well described in the literature. However, little is known about what topics CAPs actually focus on and how those discussions impact implementation at the local sites, which is what we wanted to explore in this study.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What did we do?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We analyzed 128 meeting minutes from CAP members as well as 278 provider and client surveys about what worked best and worst in the program. We then brought the analysis back to some of the key informants to further understand our findings.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What did we find?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The CAP partners\u2019 discussions focused on a wide range of topics, many of which were not identified by providers and clients as substantial positives or negatives of the program. The CAP partners mostly discussed topics at a higher level that did not directly relate to on the ground implementation. Their key categories of discussion were:<\/p>\n\n\n\n